Author
Topic: Republican Tax Plan 2017 (Read 161404 times)

Oh don't worry the GOP will soon be going after their medicare, Social Security, food stamps and Medicaid.

That will surely alienate the Trump base right?.. right?

Usually it takes damn near a full 8 years for disillusion to set in... Most people only have time to absorb how the media and politicians chose feed them. I admit none of us have time to deeply scrutinize every decision they make.

But I find that having a president like Trump has taught me that the perception filter have of public officials truly has no limit. You can have the most accomplished president ever on one hand and the worst on the other and in the public eye it wont really make a difference.

I find the idea of cutting medicare or social security, without making any changes to our payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them completely absurd. I think independents will feel the same. Trumps base probably will turn a blind eye. Because they will continue to get other things they want. Like a president willing to shit on unpopular immigrant communities and occasionally adopt white nationalist talking points...

At the end of his term when they realize more manufacturing jobs aren't coming the indepents will swing to something else.

I find the idea of cutting medicare or social security, without making any changes to our payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them completely absurd. I think independents will feel the same. Trumps base probably will turn a blind eye. Because they will continue to get other things they want.

While I'm certainly not arguing for medicaid/care or social security cuts, it is worth noting that under currently law we're going to be spending more on those programs each year than the payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them bring in each year.

Last year the social security payroll tax (plus income taxes charged on benefits) brought in $869 billion, but $910 billion was paid out. Which is a small gap, but one that keeps getting bigger every year.*

Last year medicare payroll tax (plus beneficiary premiums and medicare taxes on social security) brought in $280 $366 billion and $679 billion was paid out in medicare benefits.**

Which is a long winded way of saying that it seems reasonable to me that either payroll taxes could be raised without raising benefits, or that if benefits were reduced, it wouldn't necessarily be reasonable (or responsible) to also cut payroll taxes.

*Right now that gap is covered by interest on treasury bonds purchased by social security years ago when the program is running a surplus, but the gap is projected to exceed this interest income in 2021, and the bonds themselves are projected to all have been sold to cover annual payments by 2034.**Now to be fair, medicare payroll taxes were only designed to cover medicare part A (hospitals but not doctor's visits), and they do a good job of covering the spending on that alone. Medicare parts B and D (doctor's visits and prescription drugs approximately) don't have any dedicated revenue stream and end up being paid out of the general fund (essentially income tax revenue) every year.

But will they dare touch the Mustachian sweet spot of benefits eligibility after only 40 credits?

We'll find out!

We're also helped a lot by the fact that SS payouts are set up to be progressive (social security is a much better deal for low income earners than high income earners) but SS figures out who was low income based on average earnings over 35 years instead of earnings each year. So a mustachian who retires after making $100,000 for five years* gets the same very favorable treatment from social security as someone who worked for 35 years making only made $14,300/year.

Honestly I would be against of these being on the chopping block if congress does try to make significant reductions just because there aren't enough people like us to make the savings from changing those rules big. It seems much more likely any change would be a straight benefit cut for future retirees, increased taxability of social security payments, or a reduction in cost of living adjustments (for example switching to the chained CPI like Obama proposed years ago).

*Assuming they find a way to get up to 40 total credits at some point.

62% of the benefits in this bill go to the top 1%, an unimaginable transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

You keep repeating the same tired arguments. In a tax bill, you can't look at the delta in isolation to determine if it's fair or not, you need to look at the final state.E.g.: someone earning $20k/year pays $1k in taxes; someone earning $10M pays $3.5M. After the bill, they might pay $3.4M instead. Quit crying that the "delta" of the bill is unfair. You need to look at the big picture. Many people think that $3.4M is more than fair enough in this case. Taxing the rich more is not always the solution. What's the evidence we have that we're currently undertaxing the rich? Those questions are not that simple.

Republicans think this is appropriate because poor people are morally inferior and don't deserve tax breaks.

That's just your (angry) opinion. Why don't you assume good faith? Why couldn't the reason be that they really believe the whole economy works better that way?

Agree with your first point, though I think the main counter-argument is that the rich disproportionately get long-term capital gain income that is taxed at a lower rate for unclear reasons. I don't understand why my marginal wage tax rate should be in the mid to upper 30% range while my long-term gain rate is half. Hence Warren Buffett's famous statement that his cumulative tax rate is less than his secretary's.

Second point - I can't ascribe motives to the Republicans other than I'm sure it's self-serving to some extent, given human nature. They may believe the economy works better that way, but most economists on the entire spectrum of thought agree that it won't (at least not enough to balance out the major debt increase). Good faith without being informed by experts isn't what we pay Congress for, they are supposed to make decisions based on all available information and expert opinion.

I'm with gerardc, the top 10% pay as much as the other 90% of taxpayers. Of course, when taxes are cut there dollar amount will be larger!EDIT: I'm sorry, I got that wrong, the top 10% pay 2.4 times as much in tax as the other 90%.The top 25% pay 6.5 times more than the other 75%.

I want a lower rate on capital gains that's how many people aquire wealth, I don't want that taken away. Especially away from me!

I hope it passes, then we will have a data point about the effect of cutting taxes. Then we can argue again! :-)

I preface everything I say about this tax plan by saying cutting taxes on corps to stimulate and economy that has been over stimulated for a decade is stupid.

But the Republicans feel they have no choice because they know 2018 will likely see them lose their full control.

Yeh - I couldn't quite figure out how our "honorable" politicians could quite take the actions they took. I guess they are setting a time bomb for the politicians that will follow them. And,....since they don't seem to be doing much to help the average working Joe, many of them will be voted out in 2018 and the bomb will go off when they have skeedaddled to the lobbying firm.

Grandma will really be mad if they cut her Social Security and Medicare,...... If they only cut for those 55 and younger, they should be able to get away with it. The rich folks will have their tax cuts and "reforms" will have taken place. What a wonderful world.

I find the idea of cutting medicare or social security, without making any changes to our payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them completely absurd. I think independents will feel the same. Trumps base probably will turn a blind eye. Because they will continue to get other things they want.

While I'm certainly not arguing for medicaid/care or social security cuts, it is worth noting that under currently law we're going to be spending more on those programs each year than the payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them bring in each year.

Last year the social security payroll tax (plus income taxes charged on benefits) brought in $869 billion, but $910 billion was paid out. Which is a small gap, but one that keeps getting bigger every year.*

Last year medicare payroll tax (plus beneficiary premiums and medicare taxes on social security) brought in $280 $366 billion and $679 billion was paid out in medicare benefits.**

Which is a long winded way of saying that it seems reasonable to me that either payroll taxes could be raised without raising benefits, or that if benefits were reduced, it wouldn't necessarily be reasonable (or responsible) to also cut payroll taxes.

*Right now that gap is covered by interest on treasury bonds purchased by social security years ago when the program is running a surplus, but the gap is projected to exceed this interest income in 2021, and the bonds themselves are projected to all have been sold to cover annual payments by 2034.**Now to be fair, medicare payroll taxes were only designed to cover medicare part A (hospitals but not doctor's visits), and they do a good job of covering the spending on that alone. Medicare parts B and D (doctor's visits and prescription drugs approximately) don't have any dedicated revenue stream and end up being paid out of the general fund (essentially income tax revenue) every year.

Just wanted to add that the SSWB had a big increase last year: $118,500 to $127,200 (~7%), which is one way to raise revenue without actually changing the rate. I thought they were going to continue making large leaps but they recently announced that 2018 SSWB would only increase to $128,400.

62% of the benefits in this bill go to the top 1%, an unimaginable transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

You keep repeating the same tired arguments. In a tax bill, you can't look at the delta in isolation to determine if it's fair or not, you need to look at the final state.E.g.: someone earning $20k/year pays $1k in taxes; someone earning $10M pays $3.5M. After the bill, they might pay $3.4M instead. Quit crying that the "delta" of the bill is unfair. You need to look at the big picture. Many people think that $3.4M is more than fair enough in this case. Taxing the rich more is not always the solution. What's the evidence we have that we're currently undertaxing the rich? Those questions are not that simple.

Republicans think this is appropriate because poor people are morally inferior and don't deserve tax breaks.

That's just your (angry) opinion. Why don't you assume good faith? Why couldn't the reason be that they really believe the whole economy works better that way?

Agree with your first point, though I think the main counter-argument is that the rich disproportionately get long-term capital gain income that is taxed at a lower rate for unclear reasons. I don't understand why my marginal wage tax rate should be in the mid to upper 30% range while my long-term gain rate is half. Hence Warren Buffett's famous statement that his cumulative tax rate is less than his secretary's.

Second point - I can't ascribe motives to the Republicans other than I'm sure it's self-serving to some extent, given human nature. They may believe the economy works better that way, but most economists on the entire spectrum of thought agree that it won't (at least not enough to balance out the major debt increase). Good faith without being informed by experts isn't what we pay Congress for, they are supposed to make decisions based on all available information and expert opinion.

I'm with gerardc, the top 10% pay as much as the other 90% of taxpayers. Of course, when taxes are cut there dollar amount will be larger!EDIT: I'm sorry, I got that wrong, the top 10% pay 2.4 times as much in tax as the other 90%.The top 25% pay 6.5 times more than the other 75%.

I want a lower rate on capital gains that's how many people aquire wealth, I don't want that taken away. Especially away from me!

I hope it passes, then we will have a data point about the effect of cutting taxes. Then we can argue again! :-)

Did it work there? Seems like the idea goes against common sense. If I was loaded and was given a big tax cut, I'd just pile it in an offshore account where it wouldn't be taxed. Or - They would invest it in an almost sure thing like Chinese manufacturing and satisfy world demand. Why invest it here? People are left poorer after paying the rich man's taxes. Ain't gonna be no demand for products cause people got no money. Investing that money in a US factory when there is no demand is kinda stupid ain't it?

On the other hand, if a tax cut is given to folks who need money, what are they going to do with it?

Well - They'll spend it. They will probably buy stuff they need. When manufacturers see demand for their products rising, they will run more shifts, open more facilities, buy more raw materials and basically expand the economy. They may spend some to help their kids through school or fix a leaky roof.

Yeh - It doesn't seem like this trickle down thing has really been thought through by the big dogs in charge. You know - Somebody ought to really tell them.

The smart ultra rich ( Ray Dalio, Warren Buffet to name but a few) are keenly aware that unless income inequality is improved in this country you will eventually see a shrinking economy which does not bode well for those of us wishing to live off investments.

This tax plan increases income inequality by shuttling the savings disproportionately to the top.

That folks at the bottom are so easy to manipulate with notions of religion/guns/whatever the trend seems bound to continue.For better and for worse, America is weird. I'll just keep on increasing my allocation of VEA as a hedge.

The smart ultra rich ( Ray Dalio, Warren Buffet to name but a few) are keenly aware that unless income inequality is improved in this country you will eventually see a shrinking economy which does not bode well for those of us wishing to live off investments.

This tax plan increases income inequality by shuttling the savings disproportionately to the top.

That folks at the bottom are so easy to manipulate with notions of religion/guns/whatever the trend seems bound to continue.For better and for worse, America is weird. I'll just keep on increasing my allocation of VEA as a hedge.

With the GOP assault on public education, from Betsy Devoss' Dept. of Education right down to the GOP tax plan -- removing the SALT deductions effectively means your local tax dollars that go to public schools are now going to be taxed federally -- the trend will not only continue, it will worsen. In case I haven't said it lately . . . oh nevermind.[MOD NOTE: F-bombs, sure. F-U bombs toward other forum members are just going to escalate to the point where I have to lock the thread.]

Honestly even if they spent all the money on booze, women and movies, the economy would be better off. Last I checked those are all businesses happy to have more customers. And if people are paying for it with tax breaks I guess they aren't lazy because they are working enough to pay taxes in the first place....

Did it work there? Seems like the idea goes against common sense. If I was loaded and was given a big tax cut, I'd just pile it in an offshore account where it wouldn't be taxed. Or - They would invest it in an almost sure thing like Chinese manufacturing and satisfy world demand. Why invest it here? People are left poorer after paying the rich man's taxes. Ain't gonna be no demand for products cause people got no money. Investing that money in a US factory when there is no demand is kinda stupid ain't it?

On the other hand, if a tax cut is given to folks who need money, what are they going to do with it?

Well - They'll spend it. They will probably buy stuff they need. When manufacturers see demand for their products rising, they will run more shifts, open more facilities, buy more raw materials and basically expand the economy. They may spend some to help their kids through school or fix a leaky roof.

Yeh - It doesn't seem like this trickle down thing has really been thought through by the big dogs in charge. You know - Somebody ought to really tell them.

I no longer live in Oklahoma but grew up there and all my family lives there. It's like Kansas, and yeah, it didn't work there either. The Laffer curve is laughable. Some ideas put on napkins should just stay on napkins.

I find the idea of cutting social security without making any changes to our payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them completely absurd.

While I'm certainly not arguing for social security cuts, it is worth noting that under currently law we're going to be spending more on those programs each year than the payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them bring in each year.

Last year the social security payroll tax (plus income taxes charged on benefits) brought in $869 billion, but $910 billion was paid out. Which is a small gap, but one that keeps getting bigger every year.*

*Right now that gap is covered by interest on treasury bonds purchased by social security years ago when the program is running a surplus, but the gap is projected to exceed this interest income in 2021, and the bonds themselves are projected to all have been sold to cover annual payments by 2034.Source for all numbers: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

When S.S. was introduced, the benefit age was higher than expected life expectancy at birth. I'm not saying that should track perfectly moving forward but I'd be fine with having the FRA continue to increase incrementally to at least 70 years rather than the current 67 (grandfathering as appropriate). On the revenue side, I think it makes sense to index the payroll ceiling with inflation.

I find the idea of cutting social security without making any changes to our payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them completely absurd.

While I'm certainly not arguing for social security cuts, it is worth noting that under currently law we're going to be spending more on those programs each year than the payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them bring in each year.

Last year the social security payroll tax (plus income taxes charged on benefits) brought in $869 billion, but $910 billion was paid out. Which is a small gap, but one that keeps getting bigger every year.*

*Right now that gap is covered by interest on treasury bonds purchased by social security years ago when the program is running a surplus, but the gap is projected to exceed this interest income in 2021, and the bonds themselves are projected to all have been sold to cover annual payments by 2034.Source for all numbers: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

When S.S. was introduced, the benefit age was higher than expected life expectancy at birth. I'm not saying that should track perfectly moving forward but I'd be fine with having the FRA continue to increase incrementally to at least 70 years rather than the current 67 (grandfathering as appropriate). On the revenue side, I think it makes sense to index the payroll ceiling with inflation.

Yes, it seems to me to be appropriate to start benefits at 65 and move FRA to 70.

But then, I also think retirement plans should be removed from employment. Let's all have a $20k IRA, with no 401k, 401a, 403b, 479, 666...

I find the idea of cutting social security without making any changes to our payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them completely absurd.

While I'm certainly not arguing for social security cuts, it is worth noting that under currently law we're going to be spending more on those programs each year than the payroll taxes which are supposed to pay for them bring in each year.

Last year the social security payroll tax (plus income taxes charged on benefits) brought in $869 billion, but $910 billion was paid out. Which is a small gap, but one that keeps getting bigger every year.*

*Right now that gap is covered by interest on treasury bonds purchased by social security years ago when the program is running a surplus, but the gap is projected to exceed this interest income in 2021, and the bonds themselves are projected to all have been sold to cover annual payments by 2034.Source for all numbers: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

When S.S. was introduced, the benefit age was higher than expected life expectancy at birth. I'm not saying that should track perfectly moving forward but I'd be fine with having the FRA continue to increase incrementally to at least 70 years rather than the current 67 (grandfathering as appropriate). On the revenue side, I think it makes sense to index the payroll ceiling with inflation.

they need to raise the SS cap each year so collections meet up with out lays. General inflation is not at all close to keeping up with health care inflation.

70 yrs for full retirement is ridiculous, but I suppose it's essentially the same as only paying out 75% of projected benefits which is what we're facing now. It does concern me thinking about all those elderly ppl out there who are working who should not be and whatever mistakes are occurring. Allowing these people to retire opens up more jobs for younger people.

When S.S. was introduced, the benefit age was higher than expected life expectancy at birth. I'm not saying that should track perfectly moving forward but I'd be fine with having the FRA continue to increase incrementally to at least 70 years rather than the current 67 (grandfathering as appropriate). On the revenue side, I think it makes sense to index the payroll ceiling with inflation.

That's true, although you also have to remember a lot of the low life expectancy back then was caused by extremely high infant and childhood mortality relative to what we see today. If you die between the ages of 0 and 10 you have a big impact on overall life expectancy, but you're neither collecting social security nor paying into the social security fund in any meaningful fashion. The folks who did the most "good" for social security's balance sheets were the ones who lived into their late 50s early 60s, paying into the fund for decades before dropping dead. And life expectancy at 50 has changed significantly less than life expectancy at birth.

I completely agree with indexing the payroll ceiling to inflation (I didn't realize it wasn't already). Because so many people at the low end of the income spectrum appear to take social security the minute they become eligible at 62 while people with a lot of their own savings can put off taking the benefits until after FRA to maximize their payouts, raising the FRA acts is essentially a backdoor benefit cut that is focused more on low income/low net worth seniors than on the population as a whole. If a benefit cut ends up being necessary, maybe that's a politically more palatable approach than being upfront about reducing benefits, but if I had complete control over the program, somehow didn't answer to anyone who had to worry about getting reelected, but still needed to cut total spending, I'd prefer to cut benefits globally, which would have a more balanced effect on both high and low net worth individuals.

When S.S. was introduced, the benefit age was higher than expected life expectancy at birth. I'm not saying that should track perfectly moving forward but I'd be fine with having the FRA continue to increase incrementally to at least 70 years rather than the current 67 (grandfathering as appropriate). On the revenue side, I think it makes sense to index the payroll ceiling with inflation.

You also have to consider what those extra years look like. Even for a healthy, active individual, expecting them to continue working may not be reasonable.

People used to die younger, but the trajectory was different (decline was less gradual).

Never understood those that think the government should keep taking a larger percentage of an ever increase piece of the pie and that we should continue to give more benefits to more and more people. Stop the Madness!

Many Mustachians are trying to figure out how to pay the least taxes, get the most benefitsand have no understanding there is a limit to how much more the government can spend than it takes in. It's just like a family, pretty soon the credit card payment is due and the money to pay it is spent on the rent. Stop the Madness!

Never understood those that think the government should keep taking a larger percentage of an ever increase piece of the pie and that we should continue to give more benefits to more and more people. Stop the Madness!

Many Mustachians are trying to figure out how to pay the least taxes, get the most benefitsand have no understanding there is a limit to how much more the government can spend than it takes in. It's just like a family, pretty soon the credit card payment is due and the money to pay it is spent on the rent. Stop the Madness!

ARRGH!

It's really, really not. Finances on the level of the Federal government are completely different than a family or a company experiences, in particular because the Federal government by way of the Federal Reserve can and does manipulate the money supply. We're not on a metal standard and neither is any other currency in the world these days, which means there's no finite supply of money like what we experienced during and after the Great Depression. The Fed will keep inflation within their target range.

At this point Federal taxes are basically a way to influence people's choices. The level of the debt simply doesn't matter. It will never get paid back, and it doesn't really make sense to think of it in those terms. Every single economist, no matter their political leanings, will tell you that the debt ceiling is an anachronism that no longer makes sense (it made very little to start with) and should be abolished.

Even for a healthy, active individual, expecting them to continue working may not be reasonable.

I expect them to plan a little bit during their earlier years. For those that are not healthy, either physically or financially, we have SSDI and SSI. Granted, laying the groundwork for personal finance needs to happen on an institutional level (i.e. a normal part of schooling) and is currently lacking. I think a large proportion of retirees are over-reliant on S.S. That is the reality but not the intent of the program. Let's keep S.S. solvent while simultaneously having responsible spending and investing become a norm rather than some niche thing you discover on your own.

Now, if the reason they need to work in their late 60s is due to astronomical healthcare costs for a family member or something along those lines, they do have my sympathy but healthcare is a different nut to crack. I purposely avoided healthcare in my prior post and only wanted to focus on S.S. Maybe you can't talk S.S. in a vacuum without considering healthcare, who knows.

The FRA rules are based on incremental birth years that end at 1960. Someone born in 1960 has the same rules as someone born in 2017 whereas someone born during the 1950s has 6 different FRAs. That seems odd to me that the increments stopped so suddenly and are treated the same for a 57 (soon to be 58) year period. I'm also open to keeping the minimum withdrawal age at 62 even if the FRA increases. I can't speak to the validity of the 6%/year penalty for a period greater than 5 years but someone smarter than me could keep the low end withdrawal age the same without emptying the S.S. coffers while also instituting a fair penalty.

I'm also okay with allowing the delay-in-collecting bonus to be lower. It's currently 8%/year while the penalty for withdrawing earlier is 6%/year. Why not make them both 6%/year? Again, this might have to be grandfathered to be fair to those who have been banking on policies for a long while.

That's true, although you also have to remember a lot of the low life expectancy back then was caused by extremely high infant and childhood mortality relative to what we see today. If you die between the ages of 0 and 10 you have a big impact on overall life expectancy, but you're neither collecting social security nor paying into the social security fund in any meaningful fashion. The folks who did the most "good" for social security's balance sheets were the ones who lived into their late 50s early 60s, paying into the fund for decades before dropping dead. And life expectancy at 50 has changed significantly less than life expectancy at birth.

I completely agree with indexing the payroll ceiling to inflation (I didn't realize it wasn't already). Because so many people at the low end of the income spectrum appear to take social security the minute they become eligible at 62 while people with a lot of their own savings can put off taking the benefits until after FRA to maximize their payouts, raising the FRA acts is essentially a backdoor benefit cut that is focused more on low income/low net worth seniors than on the population as a whole. If a benefit cut ends up being necessary, maybe that's a politically more palatable approach than being upfront about reducing benefits, but if I had complete control over the program, somehow didn't answer to anyone who had to worry about getting reelected, but still needed to cut total spending, I'd prefer to cut benefits globally, which would have a more balanced effect on both high and low net worth individuals.

Sort of. Raising the FRA disproportionately hurts those who don't live as long. That's presumably going to be correlated to income/wealth, although I'm guessing the difference in life expectancy between different income/wealth levels of those who make it to their early 60's isn't as large if you look at overall life expectancy.

Arguably, raising the FRA is on net probably more helpful to the lower income, lower net worth. A lot of people are going to be living on not much more than SS. If you don't raise the FRA and instead just do a 25% cut to benefits, a lot of them are still going to quit working and take the money at 62. If you make them wait until 65 to take any benefits in order to avoid cuts, a lot of them will work until 65, and have a better quality of life as a result.

The ones that really can't make it to 65 are going to still have disability available (although it's going to be insolvent before regular SS, but presumably they;ll fix that). That's still going to leave a lot of hard cases with people who aren't disabled but just can't find employment and people who manage to work but whose bodies have trouble handling it.

Never understood those that think the government should keep taking a larger percentage of an ever increase piece of the pie and that we should continue to give more benefits to more and more people. Stop the Madness!

Many Mustachians are trying to figure out how to pay the least taxes, get the most benefitsand have no understanding there is a limit to how much more the government can spend than it takes in. It's just like a family, pretty soon the credit card payment is due and the money to pay it is spent on the rent. Stop the Madness!

ARRGH!

It's really, really not. Finances on the level of the Federal government are completely different than a family or a company experiences, in particular because the Federal government by way of the Federal Reserve can and does manipulate the money supply.

Do you mean that the government can spend as much as it wants. Clearly you don't, so government spending is limited, just like a families spending has a limit before it causes problems.

Quote

We're not on a metal standard and neither is any other currency in the world these days, which means there's no finite supply of money like what we experienced during and after the Great Depression. The Fed will keep inflation within their target range.

You say "no Finite supply of money" I'm sure you don't mean there is an infinite supply of money before the excess causes problems!

Quote

At this point Federal taxes are basically a way to influence people's choices.

No, basically it is a source of income to run government programs.

Quote

The level of the debt simply doesn't matter.

I won't even explain why the level of debt matters, you know it does.

Quote

It will never get paid back, and it doesn't really make sense to think of it in those terms.

Thank God, we have agreement!

Quote

Every single economist, no matter their political leanings, will tell you that the debt ceiling is an anachronism that no longer makes sense (it made very little to start with) and should be abolished.

What I don't understand are the heft tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations while, at the same time, reducing deductions for studentswith student loan debt. Really??? That's your priority?

Very revealing.

No sure what post you are responding to. I'm not concerned if the wealthy don't get a tax reduction, but I do want the corporations to get cuts. Which deductions are being reduced for students?Their debt is just that their debt, no relation to taxes at all.If I buy a new car should we adjust taxes for that.

Never understood those that think the government should keep taking a larger percentage of an ever increase piece of the pie and that we should continue to give more benefits to more and more people. Stop the Madness!

Many Mustachians are trying to figure out how to pay the least taxes, get the most benefitsand have no understanding there is a limit to how much more the government can spend than it takes in. It's just like a family, pretty soon the credit card payment is due and the money to pay it is spent on the rent. Stop the Madness!

ARRGH!

It's really, really not. Finances on the level of the Federal government are completely different than a family or a company experiences, in particular because the Federal government by way of the Federal Reserve can and does manipulate the money supply.

Do you mean that the government can spend as much as it wants. Clearly you don't, so government spending is limited, just like a families spending has a limit before it causes problems.

Quote

We're not on a metal standard and neither is any other currency in the world these days, which means there's no finite supply of money like what we experienced during and after the Great Depression. The Fed will keep inflation within their target range.

You say "no Finite supply of money" I'm sure you don't mean there is an infinite supply of money before the excess causes problems!

Quote

At this point Federal taxes are basically a way to influence people's choices.

No, basically it is a source of income to run government programs.

Quote

The level of the debt simply doesn't matter.

I won't even explain why the level of debt matters, you know it does.

Quote

It will never get paid back, and it doesn't really make sense to think of it in those terms.

Thank God, we have agreement!

Quote

Every single economist, no matter their political leanings, will tell you that the debt ceiling is an anachronism that no longer makes sense (it made very little to start with) and should be abolished.

I mean exactly what I said. The Federal government can and will spend whatever Congress decides to spend. There is literally an infinite supply of money because the Fed can just create money. Remember Quantitative Easing? QEII? I don’t see this as either good or bad in and of itself. The thing that matters is the impact on the economy and the Fed seems to have done an ok job since the GFC.

The actual amount of taxes paid balanced against spending doesn’t matter and it hasn’t for many decades. Taxation policy effectively serves to level the playing field, or the opposite, depending on who is in charge. What we’re seeing now is people in Congress tipping the field toward the extremely affluent because they are explicitly bought and paid for by the extremely affluent. All of the rest of us are caught up in the Republican’s dual drives of serving their very small number of donors while appealing to their voter base with a very short term tax cut. Dealing a death blow to the social safety net is a bonus.

What I don't understand are the heft tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations while, at the same time, reducing deductions for studentswith student loan debt. Really??? That's your priority?

Very revealing.

No sure what post you are responding to. I'm not concerned if the wealthy don't get a tax reduction, but I do want the corporations to get cuts. Which deductions are being reduced for students?Their debt is just that their debt, no relation to taxes at all.If I buy a new car should we adjust taxes for that.

The SL interest deduction.

Because fuck people with debt (except homeowners and corporations, they're cool)?

The republican party has always been a coalition of two diametrically opposed camps. The first and more important one is supporting the interests rich people, but there aren't enough rich people to win a democratic election. So they compromised with the second camp, supporting archaic cultural issues like gays and guns and religion, in order to convince poor people to vote for them.

Rich people don't actually care about the culture war stuff, that's just the bait to convince the deep south to support the party. This is why so many republicans apparently vote against their own financial interests; they're not voting for tax breaks for billionaires they're voting for keeping women barefoot and pregnant, and the tax breaks for billionaires are just part of the package because that's the way the republican party is built.

Trump turned this game up to eleven. He ramped up the racist rhetoric to get votes and he embodies the anti-populist billionaires boys club that the party is actually for. The interesting part to me is what a complete 180 this is from the campaign trail, when he promised to help coal miners and the middle class. His tax plan has abandoned any pretense of this, and is instead straight up Paul Ryan wet dream giveaway to the ultra rich paid for by tax increases on the middle class.

Anyway, trickle down economics is the necessary thread that binds together these two sides of the republican party. It's the central lie off their coalition, the only way to rationalize why poor people should vote for things that billionaires want, like repealing the estate tax and lowering the corporate tax rate. There aren't any proud rednecks in trailer parks who care if the estate tax gets repealed, but if they hear "trickle down"enough times they'll vote for it anyway.

So I'm no longer surprised when republicans consistently revisit such a thoroughly discredited lie. They have to. Billionaires can't win elections on their own, because they're just aren't enough of them. They need the trickle down lie to maintain the viability of their entire party.

This is exactly why these conversations can never get anywhere. Because keyboard sociologists and psychologists such as Sol paint half the fucking country with a single one-dimensional brush, “They’re too fucking stupid to vote for their own interests because they are all misogynic homophobes who care more about culturally defeating the ‘others’”. Heaven forbid some of us actually agree that there should be a flat tax rate, or that the State’s social safety net should be a temporary Band-Aid to get someone back on their feet instead of a crutch that permanently disables them.

But its too fucking hard for people like Sol to imagine there are competent, rational people who vote libertarian or right-leaning for any other fucking reason than that they have been brainwashed and misled by billionaires into voting against their own interests. There is no possible way that someone could rationally think that a white person and a black person should be admitted to college based on merit and not on race, because to do so is apparently fucking racist?????..... Come again? It is not possible that anyone on the right that isn’t a billionaire thinks that corporate tax should be as low as feasible- since all of the money eventually falls into someone’s hands (and can be taxed at that time). Its not possible that anyone could think NAFTA is a fucking terrible deal simply because Mexico has almost nothing as a minimum wage and no environmental regulation that is enforced, and yet can bring products into the US duty free. “To be against NAFTA is racist because you hate brown-skinned people!!!!” No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people… Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

The political conversation in this country is not going to go anywhere until people stop painting with single-stroke brushes. Contrary to what many apparently think, not all Trump supports are Racist Misogynic Homophobic Idiot Assholes who only support lower corporate taxes because it comes with “Law against the other people”.

If I called the Democratic party out as a two party camp- one that wants to rule as an Plutocracy and the other that wants free shit despite the fact that it would make them a slave of the rich, I would probably get banned.

But apparently dude can tell half the forum Fuck You and not get banned so why not try it…

This is exactly why these conversations can never get anywhere. Because keyboard sociologists and psychologists such as Sol paint half the fucking country with a single one-dimensional brush, “They’re too fucking stupid to vote for their own interests because they are all misogynic homophobes who care more about culturally defeating the ‘others’”. Heaven forbid some of us actually agree that there should be a flat tax rate, or that the State’s social safety net should be a temporary Band-Aid to get someone back on their feet instead of a crutch that permanently disables them.

But its too fucking hard for people like Sol to imagine there are competent, rational people who vote libertarian or right-leaning for any other fucking reason than that they have been brainwashed and misled by billionaires into voting against their own interests. There is no possible way that someone could rationally think that a white person and a black person should be admitted to college based on merit and not on race, because to do so is apparently fucking racist?????..... Come again? It is not possible that anyone on the right that isn’t a billionaire thinks that corporate tax should be as low as feasible- since all of the money eventually falls into someone’s hands (and can be taxed at that time). Its not possible that anyone could think NAFTA is a fucking terrible deal simply because Mexico has almost nothing as a minimum wage and no environmental regulation that is enforced, and yet can bring products into the US duty free. “To be against NAFTA is racist because you hate brown-skinned people!!!!” No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people… Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

The political conversation in this country is not going to go anywhere until people stop painting with single-stroke brushes. Contrary to what many apparently think, not all Trump supports are Racist Misogynic Homophobic Idiot Assholes who only support lower corporate taxes because it comes with “Law against the other people”.

If I called the Democratic party out as a two party camp- one that wants to rule as an Plutocracy and the other that wants free shit despite the fact that it would make them a slave of the rich, I would probably get banned.

But apparently dude can tell half the forum Fuck You and not get banned so why not try it…

It's a testament to the success of those billionaires' strategy that their lackeys so vociferously assert their own agency.

If I called the Democratic party out as a two party camp- one that wants to rule as an Plutocracy and the other that wants free shit despite the fact that it would make them a slave of the rich, I would probably get banned.

But apparently dude can tell half the forum Fuck You and not get banned so why not try it…

I don't mind. :) But Sol discussed two groups that are actually part of the Republican coalition ("moral majority" + donor class, these groups are well recognized and widely commented on, even among non-partisan spectators). While I've no doubt that there are would-be plutocrats among the Democrats, this is hardly a large part of the coalition. Besides some companies who have taken relatively small loans for green energy stuff, I don't see where you get that. As far as folks who want more social services from the government, do you think the poor and middle class in Europe are more slaves to the rich than the poor and middle class here? I'd guess if you'd asked them, they feel the opposite. I don't really see it.

As I said, no harm done w.r.t. name calling, but do try to be more accurate in your representations! :)

If it helps, I don't think Sol was trying to say that every single Republican is a member of the two groups he discussed. Just a substantial fraction.

This is exactly why these conversations can never get anywhere. Because keyboard sociologists and psychologists such as Sol paint half the fucking country with a single one-dimensional brush, “They’re too fucking stupid to vote for their own interests because they are all misogynic homophobes who care more about culturally defeating the ‘others’”. Heaven forbid some of us actually agree that there should be a flat tax rate, or that the State’s social safety net should be a temporary Band-Aid to get someone back on their feet instead of a crutch that permanently disables them.

But its too fucking hard for people like Sol to imagine there are competent, rational people who vote libertarian or right-leaning for any other fucking reason than that they have been brainwashed and misled by billionaires into voting against their own interests. There is no possible way that someone could rationally think that a white person and a black person should be admitted to college based on merit and not on race, because to do so is apparently fucking racist?????..... Come again? It is not possible that anyone on the right that isn’t a billionaire thinks that corporate tax should be as low as feasible- since all of the money eventually falls into someone’s hands (and can be taxed at that time). Its not possible that anyone could think NAFTA is a fucking terrible deal simply because Mexico has almost nothing as a minimum wage and no environmental regulation that is enforced, and yet can bring products into the US duty free. “To be against NAFTA is racist because you hate brown-skinned people!!!!” No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people… Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

The political conversation in this country is not going to go anywhere until people stop painting with single-stroke brushes. Contrary to what many apparently think, not all Trump supports are Racist Misogynic Homophobic Idiot Assholes who only support lower corporate taxes because it comes with “Law against the other people”.

If I called the Democratic party out as a two party camp- one that wants to rule as an Plutocracy and the other that wants free shit despite the fact that it would make them a slave of the rich, I would probably get banned.

But apparently dude can tell half the forum Fuck You and not get banned so why not try it…

It's a testament to the success of those billionaires' strategy that their lackeys so vociferously assert their own agency.

I do not appreciate being called anyone's "Lackey", and you completely disregarded my point above painting everyone with a one-dimensional brush.

It's a testament to the success of those billionaires' strategy that their lackeys so vociferously assert their own agency.

Fuck You.

A. Why do we need a tax cut for business and rich people when the economy is strong?B. How do we respond when the economy tanks, as it inevitably will, with tax rates already at record lows?C. Why is government spending the only side of the equation where it's worth causing pain?

This is exactly why these conversations can never get anywhere. Because keyboard sociologists and psychologists such as Sol paint half the fucking country with a single one-dimensional brush, “They’re too fucking stupid to vote for their own interests because they are all misogynic homophobes who care more about culturally defeating the ‘others’”. Heaven forbid some of us actually agree that there should be a flat tax rate, or that the State’s social safety net should be a temporary Band-Aid to get someone back on their feet instead of a crutch that permanently disables them.

But its too fucking hard for people like Sol to imagine there are competent, rational people who vote libertarian or right-leaning for any other fucking reason than that they have been brainwashed and misled by billionaires into voting against their own interests. There is no possible way that someone could rationally think that a white person and a black person should be admitted to college based on merit and not on race, because to do so is apparently fucking racist?????..... Come again? It is not possible that anyone on the right that isn’t a billionaire thinks that corporate tax should be as low as feasible- since all of the money eventually falls into someone’s hands (and can be taxed at that time). Its not possible that anyone could think NAFTA is a fucking terrible deal simply because Mexico has almost nothing as a minimum wage and no environmental regulation that is enforced, and yet can bring products into the US duty free. “To be against NAFTA is racist because you hate brown-skinned people!!!!” No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people… Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

The political conversation in this country is not going to go anywhere until people stop painting with single-stroke brushes. Contrary to what many apparently think, not all Trump supports are Racist Misogynic Homophobic Idiot Assholes who only support lower corporate taxes because it comes with “Law against the other people”.

If I called the Democratic party out as a two party camp- one that wants to rule as an Plutocracy and the other that wants free shit despite the fact that it would make them a slave of the rich, I would probably get banned.

But apparently dude can tell half the forum Fuck You and not get banned so why not try it…

It's a testament to the success of those billionaires' strategy that their lackeys so vociferously assert their own agency.

I'm not concerned if the wealthy don't get a tax reduction, but I do want the corporations to get cuts.

Could you explain to me why tax cuts for corporations is a good idea again. No, really. Spell it out for me. Maybe I'm just completely missing something that's really obvious.

Lower corporate taxes will make us more competitive with other countries. Our corporations will sell more creating jobs. Lower corporate taxes will lower the cost of goods which is equivalent to giving people a raise. Lower corporate taxes will help keep inflation in check even as the economy booms. Lower corporate taxes will boost business investment, creating a larger tax base in the future. Lower corporate taxes will reduce shifting of profits overseas. Lower corporate taxes will decrease the tax avoidance that companies use thru legal loopholes Lower corporate taxes will decrease time and money spent avoiding taxes. Lower corporate taxes will help small companies compete with big companies that hire teams of lawyers to exploit loopholes to reduce their tax bill, small companies can't afford the lawyers needed. Lower corporate taxes will increase employee wages. Lower corporate taxes will increase stockholder dividends Lower corporate taxes will increase foreign investment in the US

Am I positive all these will happen? There will be several that happen, some will take time to develop, and many will add their small part to the economic competitiveness and economic growth we want.

Obamacare is a tax.The safety net shouldn't create a dependency.Taxes should be low (but a flat tax is a terrible idea).Environmental regulations are important.UBI is a pipe dream.I have some doubts about affirmative action.Voter ID laws aren't a ditch worth dying in, a view for which I've been called a racist both online and offline.

But none of this excuses the absolute garbage that the GOP of the last decade wraps what remains of their conservative views in order to get the votes of the batshit insane. Sol's view is pretty fucking on point there. The GOP as it currently stands is the party of idiots, and those who think the ends justifies the means, even if it means waging war on common sense.

Knock off the religious bullshit, stop giving a platform to conspiracy theorists of all stripes, get your house in order, and you may have a shot at luring back rational people. Until then, enjoy the company you have.

There is no possible way that someone could rationally think that a white person and a black person should be admitted to college based on merit and not on race, because to do so is apparently fucking racist?????..... Come again?

This is a tricky topic.

At one point I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. Admissions to college, police forces, fire departments, and hiring should be totally based on merit.

There's kinda a catch 22 that institutionalize racism has built up over the years regarding certain minorities though. Inequality regarding incarceration rates, education, geographic location, available schooling, and wealth mean that fewer black kids will perform as well as white kids. This all means that fewer black kids will have good role models and families supportive/able to fund higher education, which spirals over and over again. The idea behind inequality in acceptance practices is to slowly try to fix the inequality that currently exists.

Currently, I'm kinda torn on the issue. I see the inherent unfairness in affirmative action. You're choosing people who are less qualified because of skin colour. But I also see the inherent unfairness in the current system . . . where there are greater obstacles for people of a particular skin colour to overcome and it's not a level playing field.

When we're discussing racism, there are certainly some folks who fight affirmative action because they don't like minorities. I wouldn't tar everyone on the 'no affirmative action' side as racist though, and Sol didn't in his post.

It is not possible that anyone on the right that isn’t a billionaire thinks that corporate tax should be as low as feasible- since all of the money eventually falls into someone’s hands (and can be taxed at that time).

This I do flat out disagree with. Large corporations are very good at moving money around to avoid taxation. The money will eventually fall into someone's hands, but those hands aren't necessarily ever going to be taxed by your countries tax system.

Its not possible that anyone could think NAFTA is a fucking terrible deal simply because Mexico has almost nothing as a minimum wage and no environmental regulation that is enforced, and yet can bring products into the US duty free. “To be against NAFTA is racist because you hate brown-skinned people!!!!”

Again, at one point I was totally on your side regarding NAFTA. Tariffs sound like a great idea to protect a countries businesses. There is the argument that we don't want to be protecting the type of low wage, low education assembly jobs that are lost due to NAFTA though . . . and that a country benefits more from the lower prices of goods created elsewhere than the higher prices/slight increase in unskilled jobs that ending it would bring. Both arguments have valid points.

No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people… Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

Costs were increased on the middle class (and upper class) via Obamacare . . . and they were increased in order to pay for poor people having health care. You might not hate poor people . . . but it sounds like you're willing to let them go uninsured to save a few bucks from people who need the money less. Is that correct, or a misreading of your position?

Contrary to what many apparently think, not all Trump supports are Racist Misogynic Homophobic Idiot Assholes who only support lower corporate taxes because it comes with “Law against the other people”.

Not all Trump supporters fall into this category. What's disturbing though, is that the ones who obviously do appear to be happily tolerated by the ones who don't. Look at the full Trump/republican support of a candidate like Roy Moore . . . a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, pedophile. Stop supporting these people, and I suspect that many of the claims of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. will stop coming up. But you can't have a president who says that marching neo-nazis are good people and then pretend to be confused by cries of racism.